Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Frank (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Frank[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is an unsourced BLP, tagged since 2009. It doesn't have any third party references, and the only external link is an official website about the subject. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's often helpful to check an article's history when considering whether to nominate it for AfD. In this case, the history reveals that the article was the victim of serial vandalism followed by incomplete efforts to fix the vandalism. All of this left it without the sources that were supplied during the first AfD, which closed with a keep result on 22 August 2010. I've now restored the article to its condition at that time, which includes sourcing. I continue to agree with Cindamuse's keep rationale at the first AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was very visible a few years ago. I'm surprised there are not more sources available. But still there is enough provided to keep the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If this was an article about Lisa Frank Incorporated, it would be a strong keep. What about moving the info to a page about the company itself? That could be a strong article. With Arxiloxos's rollback, the references are already there to support it, and really all we'd lose is the note about where she went to school. --Strangerer (Talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the simplistic but not insignificant argument that the community has already given a "keep" to this topic before, regardless of the state of the article. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.